Maryville Rapist? Why Matthew Barnett Feels Internet’s Wrath

The story of Matthew Barnett starts in Maryville, Missouri and includes allegation of rape, bullying, intimidation and political scandal. This high school football player was accused of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. However, thanks to mysterious circumstances, all charges were dropped. After he got off, the accuser and her family were allegedly harassed to the point that they were forced to move out of town.

Look below for 9 pictures of Matthew Barnett, who now attends the University of Central Missouri. The 19-year-old is the grandson of a former state representative, which has raised suspicions that he received preferential treatment during this ordeal.

Anonymous and other hacktivist groups are pressuring the city to reopen the case. Personally, I agree that this needs to be looked at again. If he’s innocent, let him prove that in a court of law. Don’t let him off because he happens to be related to the right people.

Here are the images mentioned above — click the right arrow to view the complete gallery:

What’s the official reason the charges were dropped? Lack of evidence.

Jenna

There was heavy physical evidence. Her blood alcohol level was twice the legal limit even 9 hours after, and he admitted to having sex with her. Due to her intoxication she was legally unable to consent. The only “lack of evidence” exists in the prosecutor’s wishful thinking.

stonedwolf

If he was black he’d be doing 15-to-life.

Joanne Terry

She was only 14 at the time–too young to give consent, regardless of whether drunk or sober. People seem to forget that.

Guest

Contact grandpappy Rep. Rex Barnett if you wanna know what the official reason is. Political connections with the county prosecutor and sheriff. That’s it.

Booker T

I can’t imagine this guy isn’t going to get his ass kicked regularly at college.

Tony

Actually, he doesn’t need to prove he’s innocent in a court of law. They need to prove he’s guilty. We are innocent until proven guilty, at least in the US.

Technically in the U.S., someone can shoot another person at point blank range in full view of a jury, but the jury can still declare them “not guilty.” That doesn’t mean that the person is innocent in the pure sense of the word. You can hardly argue that the person is innocent of shooting another. Rather, the verdict means that they are free of any consequence for the action that they clearly executed.

A better statement here would be that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and agreed upon by the accused peers before he is legally convicted. Innocence has nothing to do with it.

The proof in this case exists whether or not it has been viewed by a jury and a verdict has been rendered. He is by no means innocent and in fact has stated that he did have sex with a minor while she was so intoxicated that her blood alcohol tested twice the legal limit 9 hours later. The problem is that he states it was consensual, while the fact that she was dumped in her front yard shaking and crying and left to freeze to death would state otherwise. Further, the fact that she was so intoxicated means that legally she did not have the ability to consent and so by the letter of the law he is guilty regardless. It’s not hard.

stonedwolf

“Innocent until guilty” is a myth.

Otherwise people with strong circumstantial evidence against them – such as being caught red-handed – would not be remanded in jail until they are tried. There would be – and could be – no bail system whatsoever.

The court of judgement should consider a defendant innocent until convicted, the rest of us -thankfully- are under no such obligation.

scallywag

The public has since gone on to express chagrin as to the wisdom of Robert Rice in forfeiting charges against Matthew Barnett after the prosecutor inexplicably went on to insist he did not feel compelled to proceed with rape charges because he believed Barnett to be telling the truth when he told that ensuing sex between him and Daisy Coleman was consensual.

This despite the fact that Coleman was later found in a comatose state, with the onset of frost bite, passed out on her family front lawn where Barnett had dumped her at 2 am with a blood alcohol level of .13. Hardly the most engaging tell tale signs that the child had the wherewithal to consent to sex.

I am confused. He has been accused, not convicted. Why is it that everyone is ready to crucify a person before the case goes to court? By all accounts, the girl was too intoxicated to make a rational decision. If the boys were drinking too, why are they being treated like the alcohol wouldn’t have had the same effects on their decision making? Alcohol makes even the best people make bad choices.

R F

There is cellphone video of him carrying her into the room and having sex with her while she is incoherent. He wasn’t intoxicated to the point of not knowing what’s going on or he wouldn’t have been able to do that. Besides, he confessed to doing it. The reason the charges were dropped is because he has connections in high places. There is absolutely no excuse.

Lauren Cox

I agree.There is no excuse. My problem is that we can’t know if the accused boys would have behaved like that if they had not been drinking. The alcohol had to play some part in their actions so I don’t understand why the people are demonized and it seems like the effects of drugs/alcohol are overlooked.

Guest

The police report clearly states that the last thing Daisy remembered was being driven to one of the boys’ houses (Barnett, Jordan Zech, and a 15 year old boy were there) and Matthew giving her and her friend a clear liquid to drink from what they called ‘the bitch cup’. After that, Daisy blacked out. Her friend did not drink it. Her and her friend were raped while one of the boys filmed it. Also, there have been at least 10 reports of sexual assault/rape against this group of boys from different girls, all of which were dismissed by that corrupt fat fuck of a sheriff, Darren White, to which he said “[those girls] are just trying to crucify these poor innocent boys”.

So yeah, I’m pretty sure the evidence shows that they are serial rapists, alcohol or not. Even if the boys were wasted out of their mind, Barnett and Zech were 17 and thus treated as adults under the law, while Daisy (14) and her 13 year old friend were minors. Do you see how many charges have mounted against them here? Not to mention they dumped Daisy on her front porch at 5am in 22 degree weather wearing nothing but a shirt. Because of this, they were also charged with endangering the welfare of a child which was also later dropped thanks to grandpappy GOP politician Rex Barnett. And let’s not bring up the fact that this town is so disgustingly misogynistic that Daisy’s mother was fired from her job and their house was burned down (with no investigation from the fire dept. or the police dept).

Are you done using alcohol as an excuse yet?

Lauren Cox

Clearly you did not read my first two statements. I do not claim that alcohol would be an excuse, merely a factor. Just as a person woman might kill her husband after repeated abuse would still have commited the act, but it was a contributing factor. A person tripping on LSD might break into a house and assault the homeowner. The assault still took place, but the drugs were part of the situation.You are quite good at reciting a police report and repeating allegations made by other people, but the information in the police report is simply the written record of what the person reporting a crime states. I could call the police stoned out my mind describing a UFO I saw, but those statements are not necessarily 100% accurate. I can’t speak to the legal age of a person being considered am adult in Missouri, but if it is a crime for 17 year olds to have sex with someoene simply because the other person is under 17 the jails should be full of teens and the schools would be empty. The “facts” you recite haven’t been proven in a court so until they are, the defendants still have rights and threatening them calling for their injury/assault is vigilantism pure and simple.

educated

You wrote that alcohol in lame ma terms makes people stupid. But the problem is that Matt allegedly infringed on the victims rights….raping her. That’s when it’s a problem. There is what you call a crucified case because there was an overwhelming amount of evidence that would make you believe the victim was raped however the case was magic closed…allegedly due to to defendants close ties to govt. You should read more and research Lauren you sound ignorant. They way you present you comment makes you seem uninformed. Alcohol isn’t an excuse for your behavior it’s unreasonable to think that’s a good enough excuse ever to rape or infringe on other rights. Btw the girl can’t make a rational decision because she was drink therefore there could not have been consent for sex.

Lauren Cox

She was drink? She could not have been consent for sex? Really?? And I am the one who sounds ignorant. I had to read your post twice to make sense of your ramblings. Anyway, the fact that someone has been drinking does not necessarily mean they can’t consent. Are you trying to say every girl that has left a party and had sex was taken advantage of?

Blanche Starbong

What are you trying to rationalize?

Lauren Cox

Not rationalizing anything. Saying that just because someone has had a drink, they don’t all of a sudden become incapable of making a decision.or consenting to anything.

stonedwolf

“And I am the one who sounds ignorant”

Yes. Not malicious, just hideously ignorant.

stonedwolf

Raping under the influence of alcohol should be an aggravating not a mitigating factor.

Most of us men can drink and not rape you know…

Ann

You sound like a member of Matthew’s family. lol

stonedwolf

“By all accounts, the girl was too intoxicated to make a rational decision”

In that case fucking her is rape, and leaving her to die in the cold is attempted murder.

Guest

Parents need to teach their sons better so they don’t feel so entitled. Maybe he is friends with the rapists in the Duke University rape case. Yes, they were guilty but money will buy innocence and get charges dropped every time just like this case.